TV news is not in the category of fiction but fact. I think it is harmful fact.
I recommendation also tries to imply that a non-fiction audiobook will be non-harmful. Fact has its own telling and pitfalls and the bewarness sensors should still stay on.
It seems that historically chemistry as a separate field was about to be born/distinguish itself from the other aactivities. Fanboying over stuff like “experimentally verify the amount of elements instead of assuming 4” seems to be “sciency chemist” stuff. If you inject good epistemics to a bad field is that raising the sanity water level or succumbing to taintd fields? It could be that “chemistry” was not concievable topic of interest and people that were interested in mixing stuff were directed alchemy sources.
We also didn’t come up witha new science to support helioscentrism and let a geocentrism kill out a deadend field. Rather within fields there are paradigm shifts.
Particle accelerators are in the domain of physics and outside of chemistry. With present knowlegde producing gold from a compound that doesn’t already contain gold via chemical reactions is impossible but with nuclear reactions possible.
If we at some point produce AGI but the science that produces it is no longer called computer science does that mean that computer science was hopeless?
Being a stricler for generalization I could believe that for any naturally occurring abstraction there is a goal behind it in a “no smoke without fire” kind of way. However if you bruteforce through all the possible ways to abstract I am less sure that those variants that do not have natural occurencies have an associated goal. For example what is the goal of an abstraction that includes what bombers and bluejays include?
The judiciary is not the maker of law. And the level of scrutinity varies. If all laws required “strict scutinity” then the law maker would be quite impotent. In this kind of setting passing laws would be pointless as people would just rely on connections to basic rights on what official acts actually are left standing (a kind of common law scheme). If you have lost representation in the law maker and don’t like its doing, declaring it “corrupt” is not a valid way to circumvent it.
A jury has wide latitude to find the facts of a single case. In order to overturn a jury finding you need to establish that “no reasonable jury” could have took that finding. In similar way the law makers have wide latitude to make law and challenging that means establishing that “no resonable assembly” could pass that. There are limits to what can be passed but the primary way to hash out minor disagremeents is deliberation and voting in the law maker body. It is not proper for judges to deliberate the laws themselfs for the law makers. The check and balance is to catch and prevent what is outside their latitude. If we had too particular standards for juries there would be no real latitude for them to determine guilt but it would be mechanistically restricted by law and “jury of peers” would lose significance and then why have the jury assembled at all. In the same way the law maker needs to have some real latitude in balancing what rights and goods are desired.
I have kept quite far from the discussion but it seems to be slowly ungoing and starts tt become relevant just as a thing going in LW. I expect engaging with such long takes to be unwiedly. I did want to say some pointers.
crackpot vs wonk: Like people ar not the villais of their stories persons themselfs should believe in their epistemic process. So every crackpot should classify themselfs as (at worst) wonks. Saying “It is okay I am a wonk” will not really help.
I think the reference class on what was going on is thin in that not very much similar things are going on. But I think that comparing to esblished institutions is not reallt proper. Stanford prison experiment was ran but now we are of the stance that similar setups should not be done. There can be a reason of “we didn’t know it was dangerous” like how Marie Curie dies from the research topic. But once we start to know then liability starts to attach. I would also not discredit of the humanitarian harms that german WWII scientists because they were part of an ambitious order. Milgram experiment also shows that people don’t need any or much modifification to be making dangerous decisions in far off settings. Road to hell is paved with good intentions and if high aims starts to waive damages it de facto gives a licence to destroy. Sure thinki big and shoot a rocket out your lawn but if the neighbour complains about their cruched dog you really ought to have bought or arranged the safezones. Skimping out on that because you want to succeed quicker/ with less resources is not thiking big but thinking greedy.
I can understand a military operation or skydiving to have a casualty rate but if your math research or psyholoogy program has a causalty rate it raises questions how that can come to be as it doesn’t strike like that kind of activity. Further more even if I have opted into a risky business keeping the risk-deal current can be relevant. If I had a laboratory working on “what is this radioacitvy thing?” and then don’t tell people when casualties arise right away but say wait for 6 months keeping the risk information assymmetry seems exploitative.
I think most of the benefit comes from being radically open to yourself. it also seems that most of the downsides comes from commu8nicating to outside. If one can formulate and think without provoking others you get most of the benefits without most of the downsides.
However I understand that for some people thought and speech is so interlinked that they must choose between being silent+unconcious and loud+concious. Roman age people that could only read aloud which found people that could read without verbalising odd and suspicious. I think in the modern era it coud pay out to be able to think for yourself without using your twitter feed as a diary.
What you mean that alchemy was hopeless? We now know how to make gold from non-gold today so there is/was a hope of producing gold.
The claim that the map-territority model impliesa correspondence theory of truth is boldy stated and for clarity tha is good. I think the “proof” of it is quite implicit and I kind of find the claim not to stand. I still think that the phrasing is prone to support that kind of mode of thought that is problematic.
I find that if I want to avoid mention of territority I can do it mostly fine in that framing. I keep my nose stuck on a piece of paper and if my walking doesn’t get me surprised I am happy and confident to walk on. I don’t need to claim that I am walking in anything.
I suspect that having a priviledged entity such as “prediction” to be in the map is more misleading than it is fixing. That is a list of directions like “walk 100 m turn right walk 200 m” would be equally a “map” than a “free view point” representation and having a specific this kind of map format be somehow more important than others works in a different dimension than the map and territority distinction touches on.
I found a ugly mechanic manifested in here me where I applied all kinds of inversions of normal modes of writing. Now that I got the bad out of my system and there has been a cool off period, time to go try to make repair of my damages that I have caused.
The post is talking about organising against mindkilly activity and a thing that did stick out for me was that it was a bit accusatory. The analysis of that accusatoriness didn’t exactly go well and I am going to try to restep that process where it seemed to first go wrong.
My “spew out inkia nd words fast” responce was triggered as I thought a process similar to somebody trying to organise a witchtrial foremost needs to quickly be put down. In Power Buys You Distance From The Crime I was worried about a situation where somebody wants urgent action based on simplistic models and that urgency has a tendency to keep those models simple and suggest simple remedies. I fear that peopes sentiments of “post convinced me of something and I don’t what” is similar to a sentiment “yeah, I want to burn whitches. I don’t know what they are but I want to burn them”. It possible to get people behind a plan of “burnt witch leads to good harvest next year” but the urgency to take some action is not substitute for the plan to actually work.
The discussion by now includes some more dialogue. I was supposed to be out of it but it starts to become relevant by just the repetition of the topic. The year old recommendation was that “How this happened?” is way more justifiable question than “Whos life we should make diffcult based on this?”. And I am reading a sentiment of “These people shall not make our life difficult by their accusations” and this post to be more about rallying people to defend a form of activity. In the airplane crash analog a pilot might be opionated that just because there was a crash they don’t want to make their piloting procedures any more complex and might be fanning flames for scutinty of air traffic control so that focus keeps away from pilot procedures.
Letting airplanes fly with unexplained casualties woud be a traversty so it is warranted to launch detailed investigations when people are mysteriously lost. We also don’t just ban all air traffic when there is a casualty. To implement a fix before the investigation produces a causal story of what happened is not likely to help.
Now to the local twist.
In the original comment I thought that I presented clear enough of a situaution where there is an A and B and the B gets calle A and that is disrespectful. This seems to not have been the case. A further example of this could be calling cricket croquette. Cricket is a perfectly respectable sport. Croquette is a perfectly respectable sport. Mixing the two can be disrespectful to them both or shows a degree of ignorance.
However it seems that what it was taken for whas that there is a “bad” or “contaminated” A and a neutral B and calling B an A is disrespectful because of A being an insulting thing. Referring to excess material as “trash” or “nuclear waste”. Calling loaners thiefs.
Elsewhere there was an issue whether mentioning psychopathy and autism in the same breath or being somehow mutually involved whether that is okay. I could also take the example of mixing up blindness and deafness when a person says they are blind that somebody starts to raise their voice. These kinds of situation could be read to exhibit both the “cricket” and “nuclear waste” kind of insult depending on attitudes of the various conditions.
I was not using autistic as a synonym for stupid, and literally never have. I do not think that autistic is a synonym for stupid.I (extremely) agree with you that doing so is and would be rude, bad, unwelcoming, and a violation of basic hospitality norms.
I was not using autistic as a synonym for stupid, and literally never have. I do not think that autistic is a synonym for stupid.
I (extremely) agree with you that doing so is and would be rude, bad, unwelcoming, and a violation of basic hospitality norms.
Seems to read that “stupid” is contaminated and can’t be used in a neutral sense.
This is not super relevant if the concept of “stupid” or anything like it is ever invoked. I would guess this could be categorised as moot until that.
I do think that the mentions of “autistic” as positive standard reveals or brings it so that there is no mere flavour differences dealt with. If player C is good at cricket and player D is good at croquet and therefore I conclude that player C is a better sportsman that does place cricket and croquet on an uneven evaluation ground. Cricket is harder or excelling in it is more valuable than the other sport. And maybe somebody could argue that this evaluation can be made in a way that is not unduly discriminatory like there is no magical guarantee that all sports are equally virtous. But it could also be argued that there is no need to compare apples to oranges.
So if “autistic” is used in the bar as an intensifier then to that extent the “stupid” or something problematic for same kinds of reasons does enter the picture.
The flip side of being able to discriminate against is that also discrimination for is also blocked.
I did not access the paywalled article but I want to make more explicit about what is and is not problematic about comparing to psychopaths. There can be a pretty standard “monstrous criminal” kind of association which is handy for demonizing segments of populations (and when you take the term “psychopath” as “psycho” and “path” it means “mentally pathological”). However if some hedge fund manager can become very efficient at numbers running economical games because they can ruthless crush the numbers and make drastic actions because they disinclude/never include their impact on the lives of others that can be away for a psychopath to exist in a society constructively. In this sense it need not be a prejorative.
I shouldn’t really guess what someone else is meaning but one explanation for higher fraction of LGBQT+ people among autist population vs not that has been raised is that autists are more ready to believe in their own experience and are less sensitive to the kind of cues that would express social shame. The term “gay” used to mean happy and one can imagine that the contrast would be that instead of feeling sad and shamed for their sexual deviancy a person flourishes as something other people want to look down on. For a neurotypical such emotions might be at the core of morality making for a kind of “When in Rome do as the romans do” or “bad is everything that makes the herd attack and abandon you” kind of attitude. Even if this was meant or that I can recall things in that direction “the popularization” seems to have rather critically failed (with the underlying beliefs being hateful a likely mechanism why). It is not surprising for psychiatry as a field to be tempted to view variation and divergence as pathological. In this way this can be a systematic issue as the kind of wrong exhibited might not be selected against but selected for.
60 trait supporting genes out of 80 locations that could support it. I am worried that the main finding is misleading because it is an improper application of spherical cow thinking to a concept that oriented to dealing with messiness.
It gets more plausible when there are more genes involved. LIke if the family has 60⁄80 tallness genes and ambient population has 20⁄80 genes then having a “off-beat” offspring that is only 40⁄80 of the trait genes, the trait is way more likely to “snap back” rather than solidifying out of the ambient population.
The link has information that aspergers need to be cleared by a doctor to serve which is kind of different to autism being an auto-no. This means that autism by itself is not an issue but if you are disabled that is caused by autism you might be unfit to serve.
This might be sensitive to whether autism refers to the full spectrum or just the “deeper” parts of it.
Asking for accomodations can be quite nebolous. And even if they are nebolous they can be insufficient or non-responsive to your actual needs. On the collective level asking fo rsuch things makes it more routine and improves the general availability. It can also make sense to have the diagnosis so that if you choose to ask you have more bases but not ask it for everythign and gauge it more case-by-case basis whether being a ill fit for a general mold is a bigger pain than negotiating a totally ad hoc thing.
The framing of “diagnosis” is very healthcare centric. Instead of “self-diagnosis” we could also speak of “identification”. When other people view have a different opinion then having an “objective measure” can make it a societal thign rather than just viewpoints of individuals. Especially those of aspergers type thing or “high-functioning” can face the problem that people that are not familiar will outright disbelieve with things like “you speak perfectly fine you can’t be autistic” or “you have too good grades to be autistic”. Even the low and high functioning labels are problematic because it isn’t really a core question most of the time but plays pretty squarely to common negative attitudes. An alternative viewing would have how it might be important for countries to get recognised. Its not about whether it is an effective or ineffective society but rather acknowledging its existence.
A question that might be intertwined is also whether you should take your autism seriously. A person that feels the autistic traits speak to them but never really goes forward with them is likely to have it as a very personal drama and contemplation. Diagnosis is how it gets taken seriously in healthcare. But separately from diagnosis being openly autistic or connecting to autistic culture might still be worthwhile to do even if a diagnosis is forgone. Compare a person that discovers their grandfather was Irish and then starts to consider themself irish or one that has always known it but has chosen to forgot or de-emphasise it.
Autistic persons get all of the other stuff and the expression of the other stuff can be modified. This can help unconfuse diagnosticians and you are less likely to be considerer hypocondriaric. For example pain expression can be quite muted compared to experience levels so tools like “between 1-10 how is it feeling?” and loudness of screams. Focus patterns that produce special interests will also modify what depressive “lack of enthusiasm to normal activity” will mean etc. But yes a non-neurological healtcare provider (and even one whose field is neurology) might use a cached thought based on such marks. I am estimating that things are getting more understood and communicated that fear about treatment in old age dementia are not really well-founded. For those that can appear or give an understanding of being neurotypical, remaining masking if the receivement would be bad could stay in the cards ie making it easy for people not to discriminaate by imposing a literal veil of ignorance. For those that will illadvertly give off a vibe most other explanations would be even worse.
If you just unexplainedly say that “I am unconfortable with sudden changes” people might think you are an asshole or on purpose diffcult or something like that. If you say that it is because of autism then the “its nothing personal” is an easier sell. For example I have a problem with questionaries because I will answer them very literally. This means I will treat a double negation as a positive while some other people will “typo” correct it to treat like a negation. Dealing with that can be very baffling on both sides when most of the interaction is not. Asking for a correctly pharsed question sheet or filling the sheet with unintuitive data can seem as sabotaging the questionary. I would imagine that dealing with a person that have a lot of unconnected quirks could be quite confusing so providing the “arching narrative” can help there. And it can hedge against wrong narratives such as “I am just autistic, not stupid”, “I am not unimaginative, just literal”
I do have a conondrum as saw an opinion of a boss that said that if a computer programmer has trouble with eyecontact they are less qualified in the jobs core activity as discussing code with other programmers or customers is part of the package. I would argue that effective communication is part of it but it doesn’t need to happen via providing social comfort via eyecontact to the discussion partner. Being able to navigate and negotaite the neurotypical expectations would seem superchallening without being able to justify the unorthodox behaaviour as legimate (and effectively call out and bust the ablism in that kind of stance)
Seeking diagnosis does not pathogolise the trait I think. Compare to the worry of deepening an image of sexual deviants for getting recognised for being gay. I do think that the resources for treatment and diagnosis can be quite thin and my worry would be that those that its more optional getting it before or hindering those for whom it is quite crucial would be an issue. UK takes bride in the NHS (but also likes to complain about it). I think in US the individual more directly pays for their care so this could be a lesser issue (by seeking the thing out you also brign comparable resources).
Speaking of which getting a condition recognised only to be told that there is no cure or mitigation of it can feel like a pointless endeavour. If there are some life difficulties their connection to the neurotype can be relieving that one doens’t need to worry about what all it could be. Its also a spectrum in the sense that its not a hard yes or no but the implications change for different shades of it. This might be considered improvement as trying to torture the autism away with ABA or exile from society as being a reject just basic acceptance goes a long way.
The exploration here is heavily dependent on the Equilibrium and I don’t think it is a consequence of the numbered assumtions or a carry over of a similarity with the real world. It is common for physicist to assume the world timeline is stable as it makes it more manegable to imagine things but I don’t think it is a result. Absent actually having time travel we don’t have good way of testing this.
Note that if you take the world of Primer and consider the boxes to be in a separate (but connected throught the box opening) universse you get something that is fairly analogous to the lane setup. Primers world does not require stability and is quite different than envisioned here.
Symmetry → Twoway traffic
Clarifying that symmetry is that all the detail being microscopically same in the central epoch and events being connected in classically mechanistc way we get that if we paced bioth timelines side by side they would be equal in all the details. A further consequence of this is that every time you switch your cosmic twin is going to switch to the place you just left. The cosmic twin is also going to have exactly the same psychological experience as you are going to have. What they are going to experience is the your past few moments just seen reversed. But this is also what you are just about to experience. Thus even if on an ontological level there is a distinction of the timelines, for a lot of practical purposes we can fuse them as a single lane that goes both ways. Then this starts to look a lot like the world of Tenet. Also even with the basics of switching twice it is really easy to make a gemini incident even without cosmic twins.
If the highwayversians are not the branches of the tree of evolution why would they be a sexual species? While there can be no chronal mechanics for equilbirium selection it doesn’t mean the absence of achronal mechanisms. The idea of “pushing the equilbrium” could be turned that in a chain of unstable timelines pushing into unstable timelines if it ever (timeful word employed not in chronal sense) reaches a stable stable sense it will tend to lock there. Thus unstable timelines would not be impossible but merely ontologically transient (althought being percieving chronal time in the stable configuration could not have ever experienced them). This could be turned into a “achronal tree of life”, highwayversians are sexual because the first species that caused an unstable timeline was sexual. In successive timelines the island of higwayversians became more separated from the same-timeline other chronal life. An equilbrium or stable tree of life will not push the bubbles further apart but will those that have grown going. But their states would not totally be uncorrelated, with larger differences there would be more changes needed and every change risks the transition becoming stable “too early”.
Preservation of basis
In the RPG continuum the reason why the past is stable and relatively unharrased is that the Inheritors need the Hour of Inheritance to take place as it does for them to exist. For spanners having an unstable age is actively painful and lethal (frag). Being given the guaranteed gift of assured stable age would seem what would seem like a deathwish desperately sought for but never granted. I guess it does mean that a spanner has the option of healing frag while a highway versian is totally barred from making As/As nots. For highwayversians they might know that in order to exist and have bodies at all the central epoch needs to be connected to the start of the universe, so they might want to forbid or be secure in the knowledge that trying to mess up too much with the non-switching life fails. This might spring a profession / department of border security that intercepts movement away from the central epoch. For life that wishes to not switch this could mean that 3/4rds into the lifetime of the universe there are hunters that seek out to destroy life and matter living that way into the future. To parallel the other intellectual property call that socially set line as “point of entry” because it forms an event horizon that switching life can’t push out of but matter makig up the bodies of the center life needs to be collected in. This line could be set to different depths in different parts. The size of inside region which is accesible to civilised switchers could be dependent on the amount of border patrolling work and having too little matter to circulate could make the world too interconnected (is there a difference betwen building a country out of 10000 atoms or 1000? How much matter is needed to hedge against radioactive decay from cosmic rays?). Maybe size of the habited area is a point of political contention for the switchers
Either a life occupies new time or it keeps turning into the same time. If the central epoch is more conductive to switching then it would seem that having the choice of moving inward or outward it would be prefererable to move inward (as outward life would mean you would live a less-switchy life). So the center is probably going to be real dense with switchers. All of the universe wants be in that tiny sphere of the central epoch which could mean that there would be natural or artifical selection on who gets to visit/utilise it. Like the result that if there was a wormhole providing time travel then a radiation could loop and pile up accumulating more and more to eventually collapse the wormhole . Like in Expanse there is a division between “inners” and “belters” there could be division of “inners” and “flatters” those who get to utilise it. Maybe if you are downthrodden it would be tempting to get the benefits of switching even if there were no guarantees of safety. Also all transmission lines of frozen people or messages also need to serve all of history at once. Solving that capacity issues could be serious if it is cheap to use for everyone (is 20 million cryo pods to cover 10 years of centralwards travel enough for everyone in that timeperiod (and all the pass throught traffic from the previous century and the previous througth traffic from the previous millenia))
If you had no preknowledge whether the switching location was safe, you would probably want to try to switch too high and then try to come down in some safe manner. Having a parachute and shooting yourself with a cannon high up could make for quite a lot of elevation difference. Or maybe it would be safer bet to first climb a mountain and then swich on the ground with parachute on? For ground known to experience changes a lot “transition stations” which by public service are designed to stay stationary could be useful from a civilization viewpoint. Having a structure that instead of laying on the ground is directly floating on the magma being able to float regardless of what the stone around it is doing. Or maybe having blips that either rely on athmosphere staying stable to maintain reliable altitude or active adjustment to actively keep at constant gps height. Maybe you want build a big incline that you can safely start rolling on from variety of heights. For actually getting the information I would think that such a boring solution of “historical” height maps would be in great demand.
Chronies use, “up” for global future, “down” for global past, “yet” for personal future and “age” for personal past. Using left and right analogs would seem to be confusing if spatial right and left are still used quite a lot. If highwayvesians do not care on which age of the target they talk to why would they target their messages to a specific timestamp. It is also somewhat trivial for a recipient to rememeber their younger selfs location and not have it automatically compromised to outsiders.
Why in universe would the higway traversian think that pushing the equibrium actually be a thing? They would seem to be like anti-inductors in doing research because it has not worked the previous times either! If there were allowed to be less than optimal people then I could suppose that there could be a statistical correlation between the luck of people that have “good character” so that people that counterfactually would have done something are well off and people that counterfactually would not have done something are not so well. However it also means that the biggest “equilibirum pushers” are almost never tested on their commitments and I could imagine some psychological hiccups on taking on herculean efforts after a lifetime of handdowns.
I would have thought that the critique would be that it is too realistic.
I would imagine that crystallising or honing a already existing and pinpointed feeling would be quite different than starting from a muddled and unformed one and hoping that one solidifies.
Starting out with “Gold doesn’t heal you” and then offering to sell water that contains gold seems not to work even within the sellers own theory.
One could have the observation that “gold is not the active ingredient” but then the question is what is? Premable the chants are only allowed to transform within the tradition if they still retain their functionality. But someone who doesn’t know what the functionality is or how it does work seems unlikely to provide a variant that would be guaranteed to retain the functionality. Some traditional medicine preparation is followed so verbatim because it might be that nobody knows what is actually the active ingredient (and for some this is a separately discoverable fact). Not knowing what makes it work doesn’t provide license to make it how one wants. There is a difference between being a user and a minter.
I think it at the face of it seems that reading out loud math formulas would be lousy for “setting mood”. Trying to directly assses for mood and artsy qualities it seems it is pretty long even longer that haikus would be imagine that chants would be singficantly shorther than haikus. It also mixes nice clear vocals with complex unyieldy consonant complexes. So it smells like a compromise where being the total formula exactly is eating away room from other values. I don’t consider to have good taste in these matters but there is a differdence between being a fan of music and a composer.
If people would start to pray to Charles Darwin I would have serious reservations that they would be committing the error of false idol. There are theories under which what your conception of what you are devoting to is not super important. Just copying surface asthetics seems not well oriented to preserve the core functionality. Even if the nominal apperance is not core to the thing it attracts and makes confusion for novices much more likely. One way that Islam fights people forming a belif that god is materially localised, anatomically human being is to set limits on depictions of the entity so such lineages of interpretaion have lesser grounds to arise. Here a similar issue could be of reverance for the letter of the law vs the spirit of it. Undue codification and frozenness of the references are more likely to make the applications “dead” and “distant”.
And it is not a proof but bad-woo would look pretty indistinguishable.
The problem with guessing the teachers password is not that they have the wrong solution as the key but the whole approach to the content. I don’t know how widespread it is but there is a pretty standardified meme about referring to short term-cramming strategies of repeating “Pike is a fish. Pike is a fish. Pike is a fish” to learn biology. Arguably “repetition is the mother of learning” and I could concieve that having a mantra of “consider probablities” that would associate to any question could nudge a person to answer questions with more nuance but having whole formulas in this mechanism seems not to be beneficial for that. And having the wrong shape of adaptation can be anti-utility in that repeating “pike is a fish” can become an obstacle of considereing and imagining pikes to be a kind of fish (trivia bank vs world modelling). One critism of standardised test is that they overload person with data intake and prevent them from processing and internalizing any of it. This approach seems to be very “written on paper” focused which seems very distant from the vibe of reverence and deep dwelling.
I do think that such a thing as “Bayesian Dharani” could probably be done but this seems more like a lipservice. I guess having such a thing gets started with the first draft but I would also question the desire to have such a thing. Why you can’t just have a burger, why it needs to be a McDonalds burger? And then if we don’t want there to be bread or stake then are we still making a burger?
Also why it is not the minor dharani or the moderate dharani? Do dharanis get to be born as great instead of proving against time to be great pieces?
That seems to be designed to in large part to work throught literal meanings. Sus for seeming like scientism.
I am worried that in environments that it is important to take ques to act it is often also important not to take the wrong cues to act. In the spirit of equal and opposite advice I propose The Law of Escalating Indiscrimination: The more important a topic is the less people are willing to tolerate ambiguity. The only way to make sure your problem goes away is to nuke it from orbit. With sufficient will to make things go away there is less conditioning to external circumstances. It doesn’t matter to determine whether the problem is big or small if you want to be super sure it is fully away you are still going to nuke it either way. Only if lesser options such as “kill it with fire” or “detain it” would sometimes be selected is there a need to resolve whether we are in world A or B. “Shot first, ask questions later” is not stricly superior to the other way around.
I would imagine that headlines that focus on the level of proof would read like “Rumored serial killer still not caught readhanded” or “Witchhunt still bears no fruit”. There are different thesholds for people on what it enough to act on and it is never going to be 100% certainty nor 100% arbitrariness. Even in a trial “guilty” and “not guilty” is mostly how we are going to handle the situation. “not guilty” by sowing resonable doubt is still a “did not happen” outcome. In pleading there is a special plea of no contest, Nolo contendre, “I didn’t do it but you can prove that I did” when we want to tease out the question of whether events happened according to accused or not. I guess a plea of “I did it, but you can’t prove it” is not a thing because self-admission would be sufficient to go the usual guilty route. However prosecutors have the power of dropping the prosecution to do a nolle prosequi “they might have done it but we can’t prove they did”. Usually we assume and the system strivers for prosecutors to be more pushy than the court overall would be, ie it should next to 0 rare that a case that would have resulted in a conviction if it went into court did not do so because the prosecution was not pushed (so the prosecutional discretion is more supposed to be about hopeless vs hopeful prosecutions).